1 901.FA-2556-2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2556 OF 2013 Sampada Gunwant Suryawanshi Died represented through her legal representatives 1-A Dhammanand Gunvant Suryawanshi Age : 41 years, Occupation : Veterinary Doctor, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Pachod (Bk.), Paithan, Tal. Paithan, District Aurangabad. 1-B Sadhana w/o Siddharth Sutar, Sadhana d/o Gunvant Suryawanshi, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Housewife, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Pachod (Bk.), Paithan, Tal. Paithan, District Aurangabad. Versus 1. Gangadhar Balaji Mundhe Age 23 years, Occupation Driver, R/o Waghdari, Tal. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. 2. Dhananjay s/o Harichandra Gitte, Age Major, Occupation Business, R/o Belamba, Tal. Parali, District Beed. 3. Royal Sundaram Allianz General Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, “Sakar”, 2nd floor, above Axis Bank, CTS No. 18030, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. … Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Patil Bipinchandra K. Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Suresh Munde Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. A. A. Puranik and Mr. Deshpande Avinash S. … 2026:BHC-AUG:43928 2 901.FA-2556-2013.doc CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act in order to seek enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 393/2011. The Appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and, consequently, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The offending vehicle is owned by Respondent No. 2 and was insured with Respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. Respondent No. 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal has computed the amount of compensation payable at Rs.2,33,600/-, however, since the claim was restricted to Rs.2,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards expenses for purchase of medicines on the ground that the witnesses from the medical stores from which the medicines were purchased were not examined. 2. The learned Advocate for the Appellant has restricted his submissions to the non-payment of any amount towards medicines, surgicals, etc. He has also assailed the judgment and award on the ground that, although the learned Tribunal found that the Appellant was entitled to receive compensation of Rs.2,33,600/-, the 3 901.FA-2556-2013.doc compensation awarded was restricted to Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that the claim was restricted to Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The learned Advocate for the Respondent justified the award and contend that since the medical bills are not proved, the same are rightly discarded by the learned Tribunal. 4. On hearing the rival submissions, following points arise for my consideration : (i) Whether the amount of compensation could be restricted to Rs.2,00,000/-, despite having recorded a finding that the Appellant/Claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.2,33,600/-. (ii) What should be the amount of compensation awarded towards purchase of medicines and surgicals? Point No.(i) 5. It is now well settled that, irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimant in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal is duty-bound to award just and fair compensation to which the claimant is found entitled. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal was clearly in error in restricting the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- solely on the ground that the claim had been restricted to that amount. The compensation awarded, therefore, deserves to be enhanced to Rs.2,33,600/-. Point No.(ii) 6. It is true that the Claimant has not examined any competent 4 901.FA-2556-2013.doc witness from the medical stores from which medicines and surgicals were purchased. However it is duly proved that the Claimant had suffered fracture injuries in both her legs and hands and was required to undergo three surgeries. The doctors were examined, and their bills were duly proved. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation towards medical treatment on the basis of the bills proved through the testimony of the doctors who were examined. However perusal of the bills will indicate that cost of medicines and surgical is not included in the said bills. It is obvious that having sustained four fracture injuries and undergone three surgical procedures, the claimant must have incurred additional expenditure towards the purchase of medicines and surgicals. Normally in such a case the matter should be remanded to enable the Claimant to prove the medical bills. However in the case at hand I am not inclined to adopt the said course. The amount of compensation is a meager amount of Rs.2,33,600/-. The doctors bills are proved to the extent of Rs.1,01,600/-. In motor accident claim cases, some degree of reasonable guesstimation is permissible while computing just compensation. The aggregate amount of the medical bills produced on record, though not formally exhibited, comes to Rs.96,901/-. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, it will be appropriate to award amount of Rs.66,400/- to the Claimant towards purchase of medicines and surgicals so that the total amount of compensation is rounded of Rs.3,00,000/-. Having regard to four fracture injuries and three surgical procedures undergone by the 5 901.FA-2556-2013.doc Appellants, the said amount appears to be most reasonable. 8. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms : (i) The compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, as awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, vide judgment and award dated 11.03.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 393 of 2011, is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, thereby increasing the total compensation payable to Rs.3,00,000/-. The said amount shall be inclusive of the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded under the principle of no-fault liability. (ii) The Respondents are jointly and severally directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from 19.04.2011, i.e., the date of institution of the claim petition, till its realization. ROHIT W. JOSHI JUDGE NAJEEB..